RE: [asa] Vernon's other bible code (was: The Challenge (was Advice for conversing with YECs))

Hi Vernon-

Everything about the Bible has to be taken on faith. We aren't even sure who wrote Genesis or when. The oldest manuscript I think is in the neighborhood of 200-300 BC. Moses was around 1200 BC. I'm not sure of the accuracy, but the point is there are hundreds of years in-between when it was claimed to be written and the oldest manuscript we have (maybe as much as 900 years- consider that the USA is only 200 years old for reference). Not good or bad- just the way it is, and the place of faith enters. It is possible it was written 300 BC, as far as science and logic can make out, and your claim of math is appealing to science and logic. Therefore the math and logic does nothing to prove God's divine intervention, scientifically or mathematically or logically. In order to prove that, you'd have to have the originals.

The checksums in the OT copying mean nothing, as it was started at a very late date- again, we know nothing of what happened prior to that... many, many hundreds of primitive years. That is just recognizing the facts, not interpreting them as good or bad.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: Vernon Jenkins [mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:41 PM
To: John Burgeson (ASA member)
Cc: George Murphy; Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Vernon's other bible code (was: The Challenge (was Advice for conversing with YECs))

John Burgeson wrote (12.11.08)

On 11/12/08, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net<mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>> wrote:
> George,
>
> But why would you wish to suppress things that are highly relevant to the
> origins debate and manifestly true?

My answers:

1. They are not relevant to debates on origins.

2. They may be "true," but most of us see them as signifying nothing
of interest beyond the obvious fact that it is possible to construct
mathematical oddities from almost anything.

having already written (26.06.08)

A long time ago I became convinced that there was little - or possibly
no - history in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. It is all myth.
Which does not make it untrue, or useless. But its intent cannot be to
teach literal history. Anymore than Mark Twain's intent was to tell
the literal history of a real person named Huck Finn.

My response:

John,

A Creator who speaks into being a short, meaningful and fundamental sentence of Hebrew, manifestly, richly and uniquely endowed with structures of numerical geometry (based upon features of Hebrew society that were to appear some millenia later), is hardly likely to be prefacing a _myth_! Your conviction regarding these early verses of Genesis together with your belief that my observations are of no relevance to the origins debate are clearly unreasonable.

As to these phenomena signifying nothing of interest beyond the obvious fact that it is possible to construct mathematical oddities from almost anything: given the circumstances - involving exceedingly tight constraints and the gift of precognition - you must surely agree that they speak clearly of _supernatural design and intent_.

As an evolutionist, believing Genesis, chapters 1 to 11 to be myth, you cleverly side-stepped the BBD and CC (i.e. 'Birds Before Dinos' and 'Completed Creation') problems. But now you have to rethink your position, let me invite you to help out Bernie who appears unable to find kosher evolutionary answers to what appear to me to be questions of fundamental importance to your cause.

Vernon
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson (ASA member)" <hossradbourne@gmail.com<mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com>>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net<mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>>
Cc: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com<mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>; <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Vernon's other bible code (was: The Challenge (was Advice for conversing with YECs))

> On 11/12/08, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net<mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>> wrote:
>> George,
>>
>> But why would you wish to suppress things that are highly relevant to the
>> origins debate and manifestly true?
>
> My answers:
>
> 1. They are not relevant to debates on origins.
>
> 2. They may be "true," but most of us see them as signifying nothing
> of interest beyond the obvious fact that it is possible to construct
> mathematical oddities from almost anything.
>
> Burgy
>
> Recent additions to www.burgy.50megs.com<http://www.burgy.50megs.com>:
>
> A Christian-Gay-Lesbian Bibliography
> My PSCF review of DOOMSDAY, a book by Nicolas Gyatt
> Pointers to the IPCC reports on Global Warming
> Notes on naive realism
> A science lesson from Rush Limbaugh
> A dog and cat diary (humor)
> Two Political Phenotypes (an essay)
> A series of baseball puzzle articles, written in 2008 for the Rico Bugle.
> e.g. How can a pitcher, in a single game, get credit for a win, a loss
> and a save?
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 16:05:55 2008